WOODLAND, Calif. — A Yolo County Superior Court judge on Friday denied a request to release an accused individual to a treatment program, rejecting defense arguments that he was not given a meaningful opportunity to complete residential care before being remanded into custody.
Deputy Public Defender Roberto Villa asked the court during a motion hearing to release the accused to a treatment program, arguing the accused had already attempted to enter residential care but was remanded into custody before being able to complete it.
The accused appeared before Judge Clara M. Levers on multiple felony charges, including inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant, kidnapping, battery with serious bodily injury, and assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury. The hearing focused on whether the court should revisit its earlier decision to keep the accused in custody.
DPD Villa told the court the request was based on updated mental health records and the accused’s efforts to seek treatment. “He wants to better his own illnesses,” Villa stated, asking the court to give the accused “an opportunity to be releasable to a treatment bed.”
DPD Villa furthered his argument by explaining that the accused had already taken steps toward treatment and “went to Walter’s House and checked himself in,” but was remanded into custody shortly after. As a result, DPD Villa argued, the accused “was never given a chance to complete his treatment program because the court remanded him.”
The argument centered on whether that sequence of events — entering treatment, then being returned to custody — was enough to justify a change in the court’s earlier custody ruling.
Deputy District Attorney Adrienne Chin-Perez opposed the request, arguing there had not been sufficient “change in circumstances” to allow the court to reconsider release. The prosecution maintained that the accused’s mental health issues and prior conduct had already been considered when the original custody decision was made.
Judge Levers agreed with the prosecution’s position. The court stated that “the inability to not complete a treatment program … does not constitute a change in circumstances,” and declined to revisit the earlier custody determination.
DPD Villa attempted to clarify that the accused had not simply failed to complete treatment, but had been removed from the program after entering it. However, the court maintained that this did not alter the legal standard required to modify the custody order.
With that, the court denied the motion for release. The accused remains in custody with bail set at $150,000, and a criminal protective order remains in effect.
The matter will proceed with a mental health diversion hearing set for April 27, a trial readiness conference on May 27, and a jury trial scheduled for June 1.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
